POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

Hi there guys i think i have have just come accross a massive bomb shellpiece of evidence that fatally contradicts the OCT and i am serious this timei am certain this is pretty big let me explain.

In this video footage from 911 you have audio evidence of three massive explosions and you know the third big explosion i have just figured where it has come from i have watched this same video like twelve dozen times beforebecause of my obsession with 911 and uncovering the truth about what reallyhappened that day which is not the lie we where told anyways , listen to thethird massive explosion in this video at 29 seconds the location this explosionis coming from is right from the direction of wtc 7 and i can prove it 100 percent without a doubt using the following picture which is a screen shot taken ofthe street in this video and look at the next clip of footage taken from earlieron in the day in the exact same spot many hours after the attacks have takenplace just like the news man says but exactly how long after i do not know so by what he is saying wtc 7 is probably on fire by now i assumebecause he says this is many hours after the attack has taken place so this could have been shot from 4:00 pm till 5:20 pm between and up until the north tower isbought down in a controlled implosion.

Look at the video 29 seconds that massive explosion is coming from wtc 7 and i can prove that it is why has no one ever picked up on this before.

Loud explosions coming from wtc 7 are very important and cannot be ignored dont ignore thisi am telling you, you want proof that there where bombs in wtc 7 here it is representing itselfin the form of a massive BOOM this is just what Barry Jennings said and what he describedwhen he went into wtc 7 to go up to the OEM this is proof that Barry Jennings is not a liarthe sound corroborates what he heard felt saw an witnessed "There was a huge explosion that blew us back into the 8th, poor mr jennings must have been petrified if he was in the building with these typesof explosions so would i. i would be thinking "im going to die someone is blowing up the building if i washim in there.

Yes there where explosions on 911 from wtc 7 i have just proven that the was a massive explosion comingfrom wtc 7 sometime before it's collapse i dont know why the firefighters are saying they heard no explosionscoming from wtc 7 why do they not mention any because here is one coming right from it why did none of themhear this explosion why did none of them mention it, why arent they talking they must be too scared to speak outor something, something is becoming evidently clear no one no firefighters no engineers are speaking we only havelike three eyewitnesses who talked about hearing explosions around wtc 7 building seven on 911 kevin mc paddensteve barterman barry jennings who is now dead but there are more there must be.

Here look at this picture i have created with the earlier shot comparedto the later shot of that day from the same location and you will see upona quck careful examination that the buildings are the same ones the signis the same one there can be no doubt now that the explosion we all just heardcame from the direction of wtc building 7.

I think there can be no more doubt that explosive devices where placed withinsidewtc building 7 look we have the Barry Jennings testimony of explosions inside wtc building 7 and now we have this aswell, remember what NIST said they found no sound evidence of explosions above 140db the required explosive force to cut a a major column inside wtc building 7 well they are obviously lying and they didnt look to hard because they already knew what happened inside an too that buildingthe whole damn report is one big lie one big massive cover up and now we have even further proof to prove it.

I think it is about time now we take this new information to NIST and have a meeting with Sunder and confront him face to face aswell as any of the other NIST employees who wish to argue about the evidence and i dont mean we go down there and do anything violent or stupid of course that would be silly we just go down to NIST headquarters and demand to speak to SUNDERS we demand to make a time to meet with him if we cannot speak to him when we go there and we do not take NO for an answer we demand serious answers to serious questions we can even get a massive protest going outside their building or something doesnt matter now anyway they are going to have no legs left to stand on soon no where to run no where to hide we can use this new information that i have just realised gathered together to help justify and new investigation into the collapse of wtc building no 7.

I actually dont think this is an explosive cutter charge or a shaped chargebased on the sound i have watched video's of shaped charges and of cutter charges on youtube an they all seem to have a slightly different distinct sound like a more shaper quicker sound on youtube quiet a number of times this explosion to me sounds like a couple of pounds of explosives not a lot not a huge bomb they didnt want to blow massive holes throught the floors and blow the side of the building out they probably set off a number of small bombs inside wtc 7 to scare and keep people away from it, to stop them discovering what is really inside the building just waiting for the final explosive event i also think that bombs could have been placed inside the wtc building for a number of reason one is to block access into the building by making it harder by blowing the staircases apart blowing elevators up i also think they might have used it to destroy rooms with computers and filing cabinets maybe stuff they wanted destroyed that i think that might be one remote possibility.

But now it is time to get even more serious i am certain that what i have discovered and just realised which a lot of people have missed looked at and not realised probably has a a lot of profound implications my little discovery i am certain is a pretty big bombshell to the OCT because of the now ever so obvious glaring contradiction, is anyone familair with the term another big red flag has just been raised in regards to examining the OCT but no we are told over and over again that no bombs where used on 911 that there where no bombs in any of the wtc complexes that there where no explosives present how the hell would all the duh bunkers know the wtc site and the rubble pile of wtc 7 where never tested forexplosive residues which they should have, no we are not wrong they who choseto so blindly believe and follow the governments version of the events are wrong,and now we have even further evidence to prove our case the official version is of what happened on 911 is so full of holes it should have fallen apart ages a go but no of course it hasnt just yet?

In my closing statement i feel like the OCT is a tree that is being hit repeatedlywith an axe how many times do you have to hit the damn tree before it falls over and comes crashing to the ground, well ladies and gentlemen we have just had another massive swing of the axe once again.

I agree, I saw this one last year. NIST did have access to this but chose to ignore the sound and words of the first reponders who without prejudice stated the obvious, "explosions, coming down". At the time they had no agenda but self preservation and therefore quite credible as witnesses.

I agree, I saw this one last year. NIST did have access to this but chose to ignore the sound and words of the first reponders who without prejudice stated the obvious, "explosions, coming down". At the time they had no agenda but self preservation and therefore quite credible as witnesses.

Can you tell the time of the footage where the explosion takes place just by looking at the angle of the sunlight?How do you tell the time of day by using sunlight and shadows reflection?

Are you saying there was one explosion, or multiple explosions set off at the same time? The truth movement is claiming that since the building showed a free fall descent for 2.25 seconds or about 100' of descent it meant that anything to impede that 100 foot descent had to be removed during those 2.25 seconds. One way to do it is to explode what amounts to 8 floors worth of columns at once... and the top would accelerate to free fall until it met resistance of what was below... and show a noticeable jolt when it did.

Another way it could show free fall acceleration is if the structure where removed in sequence so that as the top descended say 16 feet in the first second of free fall - 16' of structure would have to be removed in that first second. Then as the second second of descent occurred an additional 28 feet or structure had to be removed and then in the last quarter second the last 58 feet of structure had to be removed. These are minimum removal to show free fall. It also could have been done with 4 explosions which each knocked out a single 24' column ever half second.

The point being that if the destruction sounded like a single explosion it would have to have taken out all the structural material for 100 feet.

There are other possibilities. Before the collapse is observed parts of the building inside... behind the facade were destroyed and collapsed. We can see the East penthouse descend first... in advance of the entire upper structure. So perhaps this means that parts of the core where taken out first and then the remaining "perimeter" structure came next in something like the sequences noted above.

The problem is that we can't see inside and what is happening to the structure. We only see the facade and what "telegraphs" through.

Also, I think one the building was "compromised" in the beginning, but one or several explosions (before or after WTC 1 came down) and there were fires inside... explosions from "things" inside the building was likely... such as fuel tanks and HVAC equipment and electrical transformers. I don't know how loud or destructive these would be, but I think there would be more than fire damage.

And then of course the question remains... when were the explosives or whatever planted?

Are you saying there was one explosion, or multiple explosions set off at the same time? The truth movement is claiming that since the building showed a free fall descent for 2.25 seconds or about 100' of descent it meant that anything to impede that 100 foot descent had to be removed during those 2.25 seconds. One way to do it is to explode what amounts to 8 floors worth of columns at once... and the top would accelerate to free fall until it met resistance of what was below... and show a noticeable jolt when it did.

Another way it could show free fall acceleration is if the structure where removed in sequence so that as the top descended say 16 feet in the first second of free fall - 16' of structure would have to be removed in that first second. Then as the second second of descent occurred an additional 28 feet or structure had to be removed and then in the last quarter second the last 58 feet of structure had to be removed. These are minimum removal to show free fall. It also could have been done with 4 explosions which each knocked out a single 24' column ever half second.

The point being that if the destruction sounded like a single explosion it would have to have taken out all the structural material for 100 feet.

There are other possibilities. Before the collapse is observed parts of the building inside... behind the facade were destroyed and collapsed. We can see the East penthouse descend first... in advance of the entire upper structure. So perhaps this means that parts of the core where taken out first and then the remaining "perimeter" structure came next in something like the sequences noted above.

The problem is that we can't see inside and what is happening to the structure. We only see the facade and what "telegraphs" through.

Also, I think one the building was "compromised" in the beginning, but one or several explosions (before or after WTC 1 came down) and there were fires inside... explosions from "things" inside the building was likely... such as fuel tanks and HVAC equipment and electrical transformers. I don't know how loud or destructive these would be, but I think there would be more than fire damage.

And then of course the question remains... when were the explosives or whatever planted?

From what i have read SonderO all three of the explosions in this video where shot in the near vicinity of wtc building 7the second one appears to have been shot near a small church chapel near the wtc complex i dont know the name i cantfind its name to confirm if it was shot near wtc building 7 but what that second explosion does show is a building on fire very close by which we all know wtc 7 was well on fire after both wtc towers had collapsed, so assuming that all three explosions footagewas shot near wtc 7 raised a lot of red flags why are there three big explosions have been recorded by camera in the direct vicinty of wtc 7?

And as far a diesel fuel tanks exploding inside the building because as i understand it there where four big diesel fuel tanks inside ofwtc builing 7 for the back up generator and NIST says that two of them where never recovered so maybe two of them explodedbut then still you should be able to find remains of the two diesel fuel generator tanks blown apart shouldnt you?

As i understand it diesel fuel is less explosive than other fuels like petrol and when most of these fuels explodethey create more of fireball than as opposed to a big bang like a bomb going off the sounds we heard whatever theyare sound like explosive detonations more than anything else dont you think? As i understand i diesel fuel will only explodeunder extreme compression and heat, like the glow plugs in diesel engine generate the needed heat in each cyclinder chamberand the pistol creates the compression needed on the compression stroke in a diesel engine, so unless we can figure out howlikely it is that two of the four diesel tanks inside the building just exploded under heat and pressure we may never be able tonarrow down the source of the explosions in these videos.

The problem with 911 is that many explosion where reported and it is virtually impossible to narrow down and confirmthe source of the explosions until anyone can do this successfully we may never know what caused many of the 911explosions as where reported on tv and in many eyewitness statements.

Duh Bunkers like to make fun of us because a lot of us think that EXPLOSION = BOMB

I used to think this way like last year but since then i try very hard to rule out things out and trust me it always seem impossible todo so i will give you one example.

This a based on an eyewitness report of a bloke named Richard Rotanz i think his name is who on 911 was sent intotower 7 to asses the damage to the inside of the building and one of the things he did say he saw almost blows the lidcompletely off the official story, he said that whilst he was in there he saw an elevator car taht was blown out of it shaft and throwndown the hall way into a lobby on the 8th or 9th floor of wtc building 7 there are not many possibilties here since an elevatoris a very heavy piece of equipment as you should know yourself and can way like up to 1 tonn or possible even more dependingon the type of elevators used.

Now there are only two ways that elevator car could have gotton thrust out of it shaft which would require a lot of forcehitting or pressing against it.

(1) the elevator was forced or blown out of it's shaft by a deliberatly placed powerfulexplosve cahrge whetehr it may have been directed at the elevator or just close toit i dont know.

(2) the elevator was struck by falling debris from the north tower which struck thebackside of wtc building 7 digging deep down into the center of the buildinghitting the elevator car and throwing it out of its shaft casued by the force of thenorth tower debris hitting it.

I think it would have to be a very heavy large piece of debris from the northtower to dig deep down many floors into wtc building 7 into the the near the middel where most of sevens elevatorswhere located.

So come on you are an engineer i would like you too tell us which you think is the most likelyplausible conclusion?

But the problem is tower seven was demolished, it didnt survive the fire supposidly and collapsedfor that reason if wtc building seven was still standing you could go into the building if you wherea good engineer or an explosives expert look at the damage to the inside of the building and if youknow what to look for you could go through the builing and asses the damage and determine if there isany damage done to the still standing building by explosives or bombs but unfortunatly the buildingcollapsed, the steel of wtc builing 7 building seven was not even look at hardly at all it was mixed inwith the all the steel form the wtc twin towers so i have heard maybe they did this to deliberatlyconfuse people so they couldnt tell where the steel had come and had it shipped away and quicklyscrapped for all we know.

The steel members of tower number seven where never examined or looked at for evidence of firedamage heating bending or failure, and NIST's excuse is the steel from wtc builing seven wasnever numbered or stamped during its original construction a therefore NIST said it would be a wastedof time to look at the steel because we would not be able to determine where each steel member fromtower seven was located this may be a problem if FIRE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COLLAPSEBUT IT WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM IF SOME TYPE OF EXPLOSIVE CHARGES WHERE USED IF THEYWHERE USED OR BOMBS WHERE USED WOULD IT REALLY MATTER WHERE THE STEEL MEMBERSTHAT WHERE BLOWN APART BENT OR CUT WHER LOCATED? NO IT WOULD NOT BECAUSE IF THIS TYPEOF EVIDENCE WAS FOUND IT WOULD PROVE WHY THE BUILDING CAME DOWN IN THE FIRST PLACE

NIST HAS FOUND A VERY CONVENIENT EXCUSE FOR NOT EXAMINING THE WTC BUILDING 7 STEEL HAVENT THEY?

I think wtc building seven was taken down starting with one column at a time. At that there probably wassmall explosive devices planted inside the building.

Listen to the famous explosion taken at the start of the video that explosion to me defintly sounds likesome kind of shaped or cutter charge.

Check out this video whether you care to or not the evidence is there all you have do is open your eyes.

I am not claiming that explosives were not associated with the collapse of building 7. I simply asked you how about the number of explosions which would would be required to take out enough of the columns so that that the top of the building would be free to descend at free fall for a couple of seconds.

I am an architect and not an engineer and know nothing about explosives and could not recognize the type of explosive or bomb if I heard it. I have no experience in the military. I did hear a terrorist bomb go off in the 70s I think when I was in lower Manhattan one evening having dinner and a bomb exploded in 1 Federal Plaza which was quite close to where we were eating. It was a very load boom, but I don't think it did all that much damage except blow out lots of windows at the first floor. I know nothing about bombs, how much force they pack and so forth.

Free fall acceleration would require the complete removal of resistance. If something falls at free fall for one second it will travel 16 feet with no resistance. WTC 7 was clocked to have the roof descend at FF for 2.25 seconds and that means that every supporting column which carried the structure we see descending had to have been removed in the 2.25 second time frame.

I believe in the twin towers the "approach" was to get the tops off the columns that supported them... sort of translate them to the side by a foot or two. This left nothing below them and so the structure above would descend at free fall until it met resistance. I believe that WTC 1 might have accelerated for a second of so and then it slowed as the structure below was encountered by some of the columns from above. But the mass and energy of the tops was no match for the resistance of the slabs. This would be like hitting a thin window pane with a hammer. The pane does show the hammer, but it is by a tiny fraction and the window simply shatters in what appears to be an "instant". In the case of WTC 1 the speed of collapse was less the FF and it stopped accelerating when it reached about 60 mph or 100 feet / second.

I have heard transformers explode and they also make a huge boom. I image that there were several massive transformers in the con ed sub station under WTC 7 and they might have exploded. The tower would not come down without the structure being taken out for several floors such that the fall mass above - 30 or so stories would then destroy itself as is done in a controlled demolition. Everything is not blown up - gravity does most of the work and so it did on 9/11.

So the question is really how few or many explosives or whatever were used to "get rid of" or move the upper structure off column to enable FF descent for 100 feet.

I am as troubled by WTC 7 as anyone. But we have not yet described how it was done. Have we?

I am not claiming that explosives were not associated with the collapse of building 7. I simply asked you how about the number of explosions which would would be required to take out enough of the columns so that that the top of the building would be free to descend at free fall for a couple of seconds.

I am an architect and not an engineer and know nothing about explosives and could not recognize the type of explosive or bomb if I heard it. I have no experience in the military. I did hear a terrorist bomb go off in the 70s I think when I was in lower Manhattan one evening having dinner and a bomb exploded in 1 Federal Plaza which was quite close to where we were eating. It was a very load boom, but I don't think it did all that much damage except blow out lots of windows at the first floor. I know nothing about bombs, how much force they pack and so forth.

Free fall acceleration would require the complete removal of resistance. If something falls at free fall for one second it will travel 16 feet with no resistance. WTC 7 was clocked to have the roof descend at FF for 2.25 seconds and that means that every supporting column which carried the structure we see descending had to have been removed in the 2.25 second time frame.

I believe in the twin towers the "approach" was to get the tops off the columns that supported them... sort of translate them to the side by a foot or two. This left nothing below them and so the structure above would descend at free fall until it met resistance. I believe that WTC 1 might have accelerated for a second of so and then it slowed as the structure below was encountered by some of the columns from above. But the mass and energy of the tops was no match for the resistance of the slabs. This would be like hitting a thin window pane with a hammer. The pane does show the hammer, but it is by a tiny fraction and the window simply shatters in what appears to be an "instant". In the case of WTC 1 the speed of collapse was less the FF and it stopped accelerating when it reached about 60 mph or 100 feet / second.

I have heard transformers explode and they also make a huge boom. I image that there were several massive transformers in the con ed sub station under WTC 7 and they might have exploded. The tower would not come down without the structure being taken out for several floors such that the fall mass above - 30 or so stories would then destroy itself as is done in a controlled demolition. Everything is not blown up - gravity does most of the work and so it did on 9/11.

So the question is really how few or many explosives or whatever were used to "get rid of" or move the upper structure off column to enable FF descent for 100 feet.

I am as troubled by WTC 7 as anyone. But we have not yet described how it was done. Have we?

I am not claiming that explosives were not associated with the collapse of building 7. I simply asked you how about the number of explosions which would would be required to take out enough of the columns so that that the top of the building would be free to descend at free fall for a couple of seconds.

I am an architect and not an engineer and know nothing about explosives and could not recognize the type of explosive or bomb if I heard it. I have no experience in the military. I did hear a terrorist bomb go off in the 70s I think when I was in lower Manhattan one evening having dinner and a bomb exploded in 1 Federal Plaza which was quite close to where we were eating. It was a very load boom, but I don't think it did all that much damage except blow out lots of windows at the first floor. I know nothing about bombs, how much force they pack and so forth.

Free fall acceleration would require the complete removal of resistance. If something falls at free fall for one second it will travel 16 feet with no resistance. WTC 7 was clocked to have the roof descend at FF for 2.25 seconds and that means that every supporting column which carried the structure we see descending had to have been removed in the 2.25 second time frame.

I believe in the twin towers the "approach" was to get the tops off the columns that supported them... sort of translate them to the side by a foot or two. This left nothing below them and so the structure above would descend at free fall until it met resistance. I believe that WTC 1 might have accelerated for a second of so and then it slowed as the structure below was encountered by some of the columns from above. But the mass and energy of the tops was no match for the resistance of the slabs. This would be like hitting a thin window pane with a hammer. The pane does show the hammer, but it is by a tiny fraction and the window simply shatters in what appears to be an "instant". In the case of WTC 1 the speed of collapse was less the FF and it stopped accelerating when it reached about 60 mph or 100 feet / second.

I have heard transformers explode and they also make a huge boom. I image that there were several massive transformers in the con ed sub station under WTC 7 and they might have exploded. The tower would not come down without the structure being taken out for several floors such that the fall mass above - 30 or so stories would then destroy itself as is done in a controlled demolition. Everything is not blown up - gravity does most of the work and so it did on 9/11.

So the question is really how few or many explosives or whatever were used to "get rid of" or move the upper structure off column to enable FF descent for 100 feet.

I am as troubled by WTC 7 as anyone. But we have not yet described how it was done. Have we?

Look here at this video Sander O the firefighter or whoever he is says that the building is being blasted and as you will noteparts of his speech have been cut out, now why would NIST or anyone else cut out parts of his speech, with the wordsblasted and other parts of his speech cut out we must assume and can only conclude that there is something they dont want youto hear, now if no explosives where used on 9/11 why does he state that the building is being blasted and why is NIST or whoeverthey are edit out parts of his speech? And by the way when he uses the words the building is being blasted that just about proves thebuildings where being blown up with explosives, you cant deny it all you want but remember there is evidence to the contrary.

I suppose it depends on what you consider conclusive evidence. I think there is reason to suspect that all three collapses were suspect. I don't believe the plane strikes and the fires which ensued could lead to a natural collapse ( do believe that once the tops of the twin towers were "moved off column" there was an inevitable natural collapse).

Building 7 is even more troubling because there was so little structural damage in it from the collapse of WTC1 and the only possible cause would be ignition of all the stored fuel. But that seems also unlikely as a cause for destruction of so much of the structure and we have recordings of some loud blasts. However, we really don't know how any of these engineered "causes" of the collapse were done. We don't even have a single working hypothesis of how any of them were done.

When we refer to free fall, we are dealing with gravitational collapse.. after the supporting structure has been rendered "invisible" and unable to support the floors above. In the twins the collapse was not accelerating at free fall and was clocked at at about 60+ mph once the tops sections were "gone" and the bottom sections "collapsed".

Perhaps the destruction which displaced the tops of the twins and destroyed the 8 stories in WTC 7 did not require loud explosives... but used quieter cutting devices. We simply don't know and we don't know how it was accomplished. So we are a long way from conclusive evidence of "explosions" bringing them down.

But there were, of course, explosions occurring in those towers... transformers, HVAC equipment, weapons caches (if they existed), fuel, steam, UPS, and so forth. Again, the problem is to identify what the explosions were and what was used to initiate the gravity driven collapses. Chandler and others seem to believe that the towers were exploded in sequence from top to bottom. But there is little evidence of massive destruction in such a sequence and the examples given are some "jets" seen coming from specific places. This is hardly the sign of entire floors being exploded to "dust".

The key to understanding these collapses, in my belief, is how they were initiated. And this was not natural, but more than likely engineered. If this is so, how was it planned and executed? Someone(s) engineered this and here we are almost 10 years later and I haven't see anyone in the truth movement propose how these were engineered... even with all the visual material of the actual collapses.